↓ Skip to main content

A Simple, Evidence-Based Approach to Help Guide Diagnosis of Heart Failure With Preserved Ejection Fraction

Overview of attention for article published in Circulation, August 2018
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • In the top 5% of all research outputs scored by Altmetric
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (99th percentile)
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (96th percentile)

Mentioned by

news
4 news outlets
blogs
1 blog
twitter
880 X users
patent
2 patents
facebook
10 Facebook pages

Citations

dimensions_citation
738 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
632 Mendeley
You are seeing a free-to-access but limited selection of the activity Altmetric has collected about this research output. Click here to find out more.
Title
A Simple, Evidence-Based Approach to Help Guide Diagnosis of Heart Failure With Preserved Ejection Fraction
Published in
Circulation, August 2018
DOI 10.1161/circulationaha.118.034646
Pubmed ID
Authors

Yogesh N V Reddy, Rickey E Carter, Masaru Obokata, Margaret M Redfield, Barry A Borlaug

Abstract

Background -Diagnosis of heart failure with preserved ejection fraction (HFpEF) is challenging in euvolemic patients with dyspnea, and no evidence-based criteria are available. We sought to develop and then validate non-invasive diagnostic criteria that could be used to estimate the likelihood that HFpEF is present among patients with unexplained dyspnea in order to guide further testing. Methods -Consecutive patients with unexplained dyspnea referred for invasive hemodynamic exercise testing were retrospectively evaluated. Diagnosis of HFpEF (case) or non-cardiac dyspnea (control) was ascertained by invasive hemodynamic exercise testing. Logistic regression was performed to evaluate the ability of clinical findings to discriminate cases from controls. A scoring system was developed and then validated in a separate test cohort. Results -The derivation cohort included 414 consecutive patients (267 HFpEF and 147 controls, HFpEF prevalence 64%). The test cohort included 100 consecutive patients (61 HFpEF, prevalence 61%). Obesity, atrial fibrillation, age>60 years, treatment with 2 or more antihypertensives, echocardiographic E/e' ratio>9 and echocardiographic pulmonary artery systolic pressure>35 mmHg were selected as the final set of predictive variables. A weighted score based on these six variables was used to create a composite score (H2FPEF score) ranging from 0-9. The odds of HFpEF doubled for each 1 unit score increase [OR 1.98 [1.74-2.30], p<0.0001], with an AUC of 0.841 (p<0.0001). The H2FPEF score was superior to a currently-used algorithm based upon expert consensus (increase in AUC of +0.169 [+0.120 to +0.217], p<0.0001). Performance in the independent test cohort was maintained [AUC 0.886, p<0.0001]. Conclusions -The H2FPEF score, which relies upon simple clinical characteristics and echocardiography, enables discrimination of HFpEF from non-cardiac causes of dyspnea, and can assist in determination of the need for further diagnostic testing in the evaluation of patients with unexplained exertional dyspnea.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 880 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Mendeley readers

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 632 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 632 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Researcher 107 17%
Other 64 10%
Student > Postgraduate 51 8%
Student > Ph. D. Student 45 7%
Student > Doctoral Student 39 6%
Other 110 17%
Unknown 216 34%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 289 46%
Engineering 17 3%
Nursing and Health Professions 11 2%
Pharmacology, Toxicology and Pharmaceutical Science 11 2%
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology 11 2%
Other 47 7%
Unknown 246 39%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 495. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 18 June 2024.
All research outputs
#55,191
of 26,203,160 outputs
Outputs from Circulation
#221
of 21,426 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#1,063
of 347,886 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Circulation
#6
of 197 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 26,203,160 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done particularly well and is in the 99th percentile: it's in the top 5% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 21,426 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 31.8. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 98% of its peers.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 347,886 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 99% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 197 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 96% of its contemporaries.